Convicted TRAITOR lynne stewart was sentenced to 28 months for providing material support for sworn enemies of the US. The maximum sentence could have been 30 years.

Stewart's actions qualified as TREASON under the US Constitution. She adhered to the enemy, providing aid and comfort through her secret messages to terrorists. There were more than the required 2 witnesses that watched her do the above.

So a Clinton appointed judge lets off a traitor, a real enemy of the US, with a slap on the wrist. But lets unconstitutional garbage like the 'Bloomberg Federal Gun Regulatory Agency' victimize out of state dealers for 3 years. With good behavior and credit for time served she will be out before the 2008 elections. Nice.

<Low road stuff removed by Art>

If you enjoyed reading about "In bloomberg's NY gun dealers get 3 years, treason gets you less than that" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Art Eatman

October 16, 2006, 05:19 PM

Re-reading the constitution, just now, it says, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

In the context of the time of the writing, the question arises about "War" from the standpoint of a Declaration by Congress, as referred to in Article I, Section 8.

In the original meaning of the term, the United States don't have an Enemy until after there is a Declaration of War by the Congress.

A problem which has arisen in today's world is that the Al Qaida types aren't legally/constitutionally/officially tied to any one nation upon which the Congress could declare War.

We here in Joe Public country can talk about War all we want, but we don't define "treason" in the courts.

Art

scurtis_34471

October 16, 2006, 05:58 PM

Art is right. There is no enemy state and no declaration of war. Terrorism is fundamentally a law-enforcement problem, political propaganda notwithstanding. She violated a court mandate with regard to a criminal client. It would be no different (and no less criminal) than a lawyer passing instructions from a mafia boss to his associates on the outside.

We need to stop using the term War on Terror. There is no single, defined enemy and there are no clear objectives by which victory can be determined. What we have is a highly complex political and law enforcement situation that could go on for decades. By couching things in the terminology of war, politicians can justify all kinds of abuses. If I had a nickel for every time a politician said, "We are a nation at war" to justify curtailing Constitutional or human rights, I'd be rich.

Lucky

October 16, 2006, 06:09 PM

Why not just declare was on every terrorist group you are at war with? And as new groups swirl up and take shape, if you come into hostilities with them declare war on them too?

orangelo

October 16, 2006, 08:44 PM

If al qaida types are not valid for purposes of determining whether a person's actions are treason then why was Adam Gadahn charged with treason?

Lynne stewart has gone even further than Gadahn, who only appeared in propaganda video tapes. He's never actually taken action to aid the enemy as stewart has.

Byron Quick

October 16, 2006, 08:55 PM

Lynne stewart has gone even further than Gadahn, who only appeared in propaganda video tapes. He's never actually taken action to aid the enemy as stewart has.

Think you need to study his activity just a bit more, friend.

He has no connection with Al Quaeda except for appearing in propaganda tapes? Hardly.

If you enjoyed reading about "In bloomberg's NY gun dealers get 3 years, treason gets you less than that" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!